JCT LTD., ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 11(1), , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Shri S.S. Godara]

394 to the Central Government, and shall take into consideration the representations, if any, made to it by that Government before passing any order under any of these sections. Hence if there be any objections for the income tax department , they could raise the same at that stage i.e prior to sanction of scheme by the court. Once the scheme

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. PAHARPUR COOLING TOWERS LTD., , KOLKATA

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L.Saini

Section 14A(2) read with Rule 8D, the AR replied that the expenses allocated by the Applicant as per working statement filed is actually less that the amount offered on the basis followed by the AO in earlier years as aforesaid, and hence the question of "dissatisfaction" is ruled out in the present case but none the less

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. PAHARPUR COOLING TOWERS LTD., , KOLKATA

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L.Saini

Section 14A(2) read with Rule 8D, the AR replied that the expenses allocated by the Applicant as per working statement filed is actually less that the amount offered on the basis followed by the AO in earlier years as aforesaid, and hence the question of "dissatisfaction" is ruled out in the present case but none the less

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. PAHARPUR COOLING TOWERS LTD., , KOLKATA

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L.Saini

Section 14A(2) read with Rule 8D, the AR replied that the expenses allocated by the Applicant as per working statement filed is actually less that the amount offered on the basis followed by the AO in earlier years as aforesaid, and hence the question of "dissatisfaction" is ruled out in the present case but none the less

D.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-6(1), KOLKATA vs. M/S BIRLA CORPORATION LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue as well as cross-objection of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawali.T.A. No.1964/Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Dcit, Circle-6(1), Kolkata…………….......................…...……………....Appellant Vs. M/S Birla Corporation Ltd…………...........…..........................…..…..... Respondent Birla Building, 9/1, R.N. Mukherjee Road, Kolkata – 700001. [Pan: Aabcb2075J] C.O. 39/Kol/2019 (A/O I.T.A. No.1964/Kol/2019) Assessment Year: 2015-16 M/S Birla Corporation Ltd…………...........….....................…..…..... Cross-Objector Birla Building, 9/1, R.N. Mukherjee Road, Kolkata – 700001. [Pan: Aabcb2075J] Vs Dcit, Circle-6(1), Kolkata…………….......................…...……………....Respondent Appearances By: Shri Abhijit Kundu, Cit-Dr, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Department. Shri J. P. Khaitan, Sr. Counsel, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : October 18, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 16, 2024 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal By The Revenue & The Corresponding Cross Objections By The Assessee Have Been Preferred Against The Order Dated 30.05.2019 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-22, Kolkata [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). First, We Take Up Revenue’S Appeal Ita No.1964/Kol/2019. I.T.A. No.1964/Kol/2019 & C.O. 39/Kol/2019 M/S Birla Corporation Ltd

section 32(1) of the Act, for the assessment year 2010-11, the assessee claimed only 50% initial I.T.A. No.1964/Kol/2019 & C.O. 39/Kol/2019 M/s Birla Corporation Ltd depreciation and the remaining 50% was claimed in the assessment year 2011-12. Ld. AO disallowed the claim on the ground that initial depreciation is available only in the year of purchase and cannot

BIRLA CORPORATION LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-6(1), KOLKATA

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue for AYs 2011-12 &

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav & Dr. Manish Borad

section 32(1) of the Act, for the assessment year 2010- 11, the assessee claimed only 50% initial depreciation and the remaining 50% was claimed in the assessment year 2011-12. Ld. Page 7 of 59 I.T.A. Nos.: 494 & 495/Kol/2020 & I.T.A. Nos.: 2111 & 2112/Kol/2018 Assessment Years: 2011-12 & 2012-13 Birla Corporation Limited. AO disallowed the claim on the ground

DCIT, CIRCLE - 6(1), , KOLKATA vs. M/S. BIRLA CORPORATION LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue for AYs 2011-12 &

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav & Dr. Manish Borad

section 32(1) of the Act, for the assessment year 2010- 11, the assessee claimed only 50% initial depreciation and the remaining 50% was claimed in the assessment year 2011-12. Ld. Page 7 of 59 I.T.A. Nos.: 494 & 495/Kol/2020 & I.T.A. Nos.: 2111 & 2112/Kol/2018 Assessment Years: 2011-12 & 2012-13 Birla Corporation Limited. AO disallowed the claim on the ground

BIRLA CORPORATION LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR.-6(1), KOLKATA

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue for AYs 2011-12 &

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav & Dr. Manish Borad

section 32(1) of the Act, for the assessment year 2010- 11, the assessee claimed only 50% initial depreciation and the remaining 50% was claimed in the assessment year 2011-12. Ld. Page 7 of 59 I.T.A. Nos.: 494 & 495/Kol/2020 & I.T.A. Nos.: 2111 & 2112/Kol/2018 Assessment Years: 2011-12 & 2012-13 Birla Corporation Limited. AO disallowed the claim on the ground

DCIT, CIRCLE - 6(1), , KOLKATA vs. M/S. BIRLA CORPORATION LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue for AYs 2011-12 &

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav & Dr. Manish Borad

section 32(1) of the Act, for the assessment year 2010- 11, the assessee claimed only 50% initial depreciation and the remaining 50% was claimed in the assessment year 2011-12. Ld. Page 7 of 59 I.T.A. Nos.: 494 & 495/Kol/2020 & I.T.A. Nos.: 2111 & 2112/Kol/2018 Assessment Years: 2011-12 & 2012-13 Birla Corporation Limited. AO disallowed the claim on the ground

BIRLA CORPORATION LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT CIR.-6(1), KOLKATA

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue for AYs 2013-14 &

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav & Dr. Manish Borad

section 32(1) of the Act, for the assessment Page 7 of 67 I.T.A. Nos.: 2142 & 2143/KOL/2018 & I.T.A. Nos.: 496 & 497/KOL/2020 Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15 Birla Corporation Limited. year 2010-11, the assessee claimed only 50% initial depreciation and the remaining 50% was claimed in the assessment year 2011-12. Ld. AO disallowed the claim on the ground

DCIT, CIRCLE - 6(1), , KOLKATA vs. M/S. BIRLA CORPORATION LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue for AYs 2013-14 &

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav & Dr. Manish Borad

section 32(1) of the Act, for the assessment Page 7 of 67 I.T.A. Nos.: 2142 & 2143/KOL/2018 & I.T.A. Nos.: 496 & 497/KOL/2020 Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15 Birla Corporation Limited. year 2010-11, the assessee claimed only 50% initial depreciation and the remaining 50% was claimed in the assessment year 2011-12. Ld. AO disallowed the claim on the ground

DCIT, CIRCLE - 6(1), , KOLKATA vs. M/S. BIRLA CORPORATION LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue for AYs 2013-14 &

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav & Dr. Manish Borad

section 32(1) of the Act, for the assessment Page 7 of 67 I.T.A. Nos.: 2142 & 2143/KOL/2018 & I.T.A. Nos.: 496 & 497/KOL/2020 Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15 Birla Corporation Limited. year 2010-11, the assessee claimed only 50% initial depreciation and the remaining 50% was claimed in the assessment year 2011-12. Ld. AO disallowed the claim on the ground

BIRLA CORPORATION LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR.-6(1), KOLKATA

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue for AYs 2013-14 &

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav & Dr. Manish Borad

section 32(1) of the Act, for the assessment Page 7 of 67 I.T.A. Nos.: 2142 & 2143/KOL/2018 & I.T.A. Nos.: 496 & 497/KOL/2020 Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15 Birla Corporation Limited. year 2010-11, the assessee claimed only 50% initial depreciation and the remaining 50% was claimed in the assessment year 2011-12. Ld. AO disallowed the claim on the ground

ACIT, CIRCLE - 13(2), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. PADMA LOGISTICS & KHANIJ PRIVATE LIMITED , KOLKATA

In the result, the revenue’s appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: "ी जे. सुधाकर रे"डी, लेखा सद"य एवं/And "ी ऐ. ट". वक", "यायीक सद"य) [Before Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

sections 391(2) and 394 of the Companies Act, 1956. Since the application for demerger was filed before the return of income (hereinafter “ROI") originally on 28/09/2010 and mean while there was no order from the Hon’ble High Courts [before the date of filing of ROI], this plan of action by the assessee company was duly reported

M/S RB POLYMERS LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-4, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee, is allowed

Bench: Shri A.T. Varkey, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.202/Kol/2016 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Rb Polymers Ltd. Vs. Cit(A)-2, Kolkata 25, R.N. Mukherjee Road, 4Th Aayakarbhawan, P-7, Floor, Suite-F, Kolkata – 1. Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-69. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabcr 3117 R (अपीलाथ"/Assessee) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. िनधा"रतीक"ओरसे /Assessee By : Shri Subash Agarwal, Advocate. राज"वक"ओरसे /Respondent By : Shri Saurabh Kumar, Addl. Cit(Dr) सुनवाईक"तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 16/11/2017 घोषणाक"तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 15/12/2017 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am: The Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Year 2009-10, Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Kolkata, In Appeal No.1386/Cit(A)-2/Cir-4/2014- 15, Dated 22.12.2015, Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Order Passed By The Assessing Officer Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’), Dated 28.12.2011. 2.The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: 1.That The Impugned Order Dated 22Nd December 2015 Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax,(Appeals) - 2 Is Liable To Be Quashed Since It Has Been Passed In Haste Without Application Of Mind & Without Considering The Evidences Furnished & Submissions Made By The Appellant In Course Of Hearing Of The Appeal.

Depreciation A.Y 1995-96 12,24,394/- A.Y 1997-98 23,43,144/- A.Y 1998-99 6,07,491/- A.Y 1999-00 3,69,781/- A.Y 2000-01 4,59,367/- 50,03,977/- Revised Total Income 50,03,977/- 5.Aggrieved by the rectification order u/s 154 of the Act, passed by the AO, the assessee filed an appeal before

DCIT, CEN. CIR. 4(4), KOLKATA vs. M/S G.K. & SONS PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2011-12 Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. G. K. & Sons Pvt. Ltd., Income-Tax, Central Circle- Room No. 603, 6Th Floor, 4(4), Kolkata. Vs. Shantiniketan Building, 8, Camac Street, Kolkata- 700017. (Pan:Aaacg8389H) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Appellant By : Shri P. P. Barman, Addl. Cit Respondent By : Shri Ravi Tulsiyan, Fca Date Of Hearing : 12.10.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 20.10.2022

depreciation could be availed of in the case of amalgamation. If one compares s. 72A and the provisions of s. 396 of the Companies Act, there is a lot of similarity. In order, perhaps to obviate any possible conflict or dispute because of the provisions of the Act in relation to amalgamations under s. 396 of the Companies Act, what

ACIT, CIRCLE-8(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. TATA STEEL PROCESSING AND DISTRIBUTION LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the cross objection of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri A T Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am] I.T.A No. 2237/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 Acit, Circle-8(2), Kolkata -Vs- Tata Steel Processing & Distribution Ltd. [Pan: Aabct 1029 L ] (Appellant) (Respondent)

394 ITR 483 (Mad) wherein it was held as under: “6.1. Therefore, the only issue, which arose for consideration before the Tribunal was, whether the additional depreciation, in the sum of Rs. 8,03,233/- could be claimed by the assessee in the relevant assessment year, i.e., the assessment year 2011-12, in respect of machinery, which was purchased

TATA STEEL PROCESSING AND DISTRIBUTION LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-8(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Hon’Ble Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Jm] I.T.A No. 508/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2010-11 Tata Steel Processing & Distribution Ltd. -Vs- Dcit, Circle-8(2), Kolkata [Pan: Aabct 1029 L] (Appellant) (Respondent) For The Appellant : Shri J.P. Khaitan, Sr. Counsel Shri P. Jhunjhunwala, Ar For The Respondent : Shri S. Dasgupta, Addl. Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 09.08.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 24.08.2018

394 ITR 483 (Mad) wherein it was held as under: “6.1. Therefore, the only issue, which arose for consideration before the Tribunal was, whether the additional depreciation, in the sum of Rs. 8,03,233/- could be claimed by the assessee in the relevant assessment year, i.e., the assessment year 2011-12, in respect of machinery, which was purchased